It proves that the natural-born thing is not quite so black and white as some here would like to believe. Joseph Story too somehow leaves out parentage when discussing this:
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; ...
Why, again, would you choose this passage to allege that the "natural born Citizen" definition isn't so "black and white?"
That passage, as I stated before, speaks to the admission of naturalized citizens to the office of POTUS. He's not talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger type naturalized...but rather, the founders and framers as having been "naturalized" via the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, they were not born American citizens and none of them where "natural born Citizens."
So, they inserted the "OR" clause there and grandfathered themselves past the NBC requirement. That's what Story is talking about there.
Clearly, there are TWO parts to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The "NBC" part, and the "citizen" part. Story is obviously refering to the "OR", or grandfather part.
It's interesting that you would state this:
As for naturalized citizens, you might think about how closely related the words naturalized and natural born are. In England and in the colonies those who were naturalized were "entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Advantages which his Majesty's Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy, or ought to have and enjoy, as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever, as if all and every one of them had been born within the Colony."
If you were to view my posts in the past, or my profile page, you will see that I'm well aware of how English law defined "naturalized" subjects.
In English law, a naturalized subject was for all intents and purposes the same as a "natural born subject."
Obviously, "naturalized citizens" are not for all intents and purposes the same as a "natural born citizens." If they were, like in England of the time, Arny would be eligible.
Naturalization laws can change on the whim of any Congress.
A naturalized citizen take's the law(s) of men (and women) to recognize them. A "natural born Citizen" does not and has it's basis in meaning from the laws of nature.
You either have extreme difficulty with the English language, or you are a professional smoke blower. Go back and read my last post to you. With your bezillion words, you didn't address either question I raised there. Simple yes or no on both:
Do you think the editors of the Founders' Constitution were being disingenuous by only using Story's quote to illuminate the Natural-born requirement?No long, BS, meandering answers, two questions: yes or no.Do you think the colonists who drafted and understood the language of the 1770 NY law I quoted changed their collective minds about the meaning of the words they used in the intervening 17 years?
ML/NJ